Janice,
I can well understand your resentment at being asked to submit to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test" regarding your report of childhood sexual molestation. But I think your confrontational demeanor was counterproductive. Observations follow:
Polygraphers are taught that "normal" breathing should be within the range of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. It is a widely-held belief in the polygraph community that if a person breathes substantially more slowly than this, he/she is consciously controlling their breathing in a deliberate attempt to thwart the "test."
The typical polygrapher response to a subject who breathes "too slowly" is to tell him/her to breathe "normally." As a registered nurse, you are no doubt aware that this is an impossible task. Once you call attention to someone's breathing, he/she is most certainly conscious of it. As you know, if you want to measure someone's breathing rate, you pretend to be measuring his/her pulse. But the polygraph profession is seemingly oblivious to this.
Polygraphers are trained to interpret complaints about pain or discomfort caused by the polygraph equipment as a potential sign of deception. As John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau explain in their classic textbook,
Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique in a section titled "Symptoms of Lying":
Quote:Lying subjects sometimes claimed that the apparatus was causing them physical pain. They did this for at least one of several reasons. First, they hoped that the examiner would turn off the instrument, remove the apparatus, apologize for the pain that was caused, and then report to the investigators that the subject could not be examined because of pain sensitivity. Second, the complaint of pain provided them with an excuse for not sitting still, a behavior that prevented the examiner from obtaining a suitable recording. Third, they hoped that the examiner, when interpreting responses, would erroneously decide that their lie responses were pain responses and would thus turn in a favorable report.
But the claim that deceptive subjects are more likely than non-deceptive ones to complain of pain or discomfort from the polygraph instrument is unsupported by any research.
Polygraphers are also trained to interpret a subject's expressed lack of belief in the polygraphy as a potential sign of deception. Your candor in expressing your disbelief in polygraphy would not have been conducive to a favorable outcome.
When Ms. Erwin asked you, "How do you think you did?" she was using a common lead-in to a post-test interrogation. If a subject expresses doubt or uncertainty as to how he/she did, that is considered as a possible sign of deception.
Normally, if a person "fails" a polygraph, they are subjected to a post-test interrogation in an attempt to get an admission/confession. That is why Ms. Erwin asked you to wait. It seems likely that the detective, having observed your demeanor, concluded that a post-test interrogation would be futile.
As for why you were polygraphed by an examiner with little experience in polygraphing victims of sexual abuse, you may have been assigned to the BCI's only female polygrapher on the rationale that it would be less intimidating for you to be polygraphed by a member of the same sex. If by the end of the examination Ms. Erwin was visibly "pissed off," it would seem to me that it was because you spared no effort to make her so.
Given the obvious lack of rapport, your expressed complete lack of belief in the polygraph procedure, and the dispute over your breathing, I think it would have been more appropriate for the BCI to have rendered no opinion regarding the result of your polygraph "test."
By rendering an opinion despite stated concerns about your breathing, Ms. Erwin may have violated Section 4.3 of the American Polygraph Association's
Code of Ethics:
Quote:4.2 Standards for Rendering Polygraph Decisions
4.2.1 A member shall not render a conclusive diagnosis when the physiological records lack sufficient quality and clarity. This may include, but is not limited to, excessively distorted recordings possibly due to manipulations by the examinee, recordings with insufficient responsivity, or recordings with tracing amplitudes less than that generally accepted by the profession.
Also, by failing to notify you of the results of your polygraph examination at the time, Ms. Erwin seems to have violated Section 4.3. None of the exceptions would seem to apply here:
Quote:4.3 Post-Examination Notification of Results
4.3.1 A member shall afford each examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings. There are three exceptions:
4.3.1.1 When the examinee is represented by an attorney who requests that no post-examination interview be conducted, and that the results of the examination be released only to the attorney.
4.3.1.2 When the examination is being conducted by court order which stipulates that no post-examination interview is to be conducted.
4.3.1.3 Instances of operational necessity.
It doesn't take twelve days to score a polygraph chart. Ms. Erwin should have known the result right then and there. And if she was going to score the charts as indicative of deception, she should have told you at the time.
Pages: 1
Truthful volunteer fails polygraph. (Read 5427 times)
